Atheism on Trial

[Obvious Leo]

Are you saying that an atheist believes that God is possible???

No. What I'm saying is that words I've highlighted are not applicable to an atheist. An atheist is simply somebody who is "not a theist". A theist believes there is a god and an atheist does not believe this. That's all. Did you miss the point I made about belief? Belief is an active cognitive process because by definition the act of belief overrides the reason. Non-believers do not override their reason in this deliberate way.

[raw_thought]

“Are you saying that an atheist believes that God is possible???”
ME
“No.”
Obvious Leo
So an atheist does not believe that God is possible. In other words he believes that there is no God.
If I believe that it is not possible for unicorns to exist, doesn't that mean that I think that unicorns do not exist?

[raw_thought]

Like I said, it is much more rational and honest to use the common sense definitions.
Atheist= there is no God.
Theist= there is a God.
Agnostic= I don't know.

[Obvious Leo]

Like I said, it is much more rational and honest to use the common sense definitions.

It may seem so to you but I can assure you that your definition of an atheist is neither standard usage nor common sense. It is an American vanity only because you live in a theocracy where people allow themselves the freedom to believe in all kinds of bullshit. Did you know that over a million women in your country have at one time or other claimed to have given birth to children fathered by aliens? How many people in your country still believe that the entire universe was constructed six thousand years ago in the course of a busy week by a divine being?

Precision of language is very important in the philosophical discourse because philosophy relies on logic and logic relies on evidence. Any philosopher will tell you that the absence of a belief is not the same thing as a belief because the absence of evidence is not the same thing as the evidence of absence. By adopting the stance you do you transfer the burden of proof to somebody who makes no claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and the burden of proof for the god hypothesis lies with the claimant and not with the one who refutes the claim. This is atheism.

[raw_thought]

What on earth does any of that have to do with what we are talking about?????
OK Americans are stupid. That is the fallacy called ad hominum. When one has no argument insult your opponent.
Also, if you understood logic you would realize that if one says that an athiest does not believe it is possible for God to exist, it means that an athiest believes that God does not exist. Also your implied contention that "athiest " and "agnostic " are two words for the same thing is silly.

[raw_thought]

Yes, words should have precise definitions. Agnostic does not equal athiest.

[raw_thought]

PS: I am an agnostic. I think it is possible that God exists. To lump me in with women that believe that they gave birth to an alien is an ad hominum. I would like a source for contention that a MILLION Americans believe that they gave birth to an alien!

[raw_thought]

Anyway, as I said previously I do not want to get into a silly semantic debate. I prefer substantive conversation. Suffice it to say that the only rational answer to the question,"does God exist" is "I don't know."

[Obvious Leo]

At least we can agree on this. Whatever we choose to call ourselves the only logical answer is "I don't know".

Suffice it to say that the only rational answer to the question,"does God exist" is "I don't know."

Even theists must give this answer if they wish to appear rational.

[PoeticUniverse]

The ‘God’ and no ‘God’ positions are not necessarily equa-probable, 50/50.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I am an agnostic.I admit that I do not know if God exists. That seems to be the only rational response.
PS: I will not get into a trivial semantic debate. Some say that all agnostics are atheists because atheism is a lack of belief in God. I am using the common definition. Athiests believe that there is no God. Theists believe that there is a God and agnostics admit that they do not know. That is no fence sitting. Similarly, if I said that I do not know what element is at the center of Pluto, that is not fence sitting.
Argument against atheism : you cannot prove a negative.
Argument against theism: God is ineffable. Let "X" represent an undefined term. Does it make sense to say that X exists?
I will say that the ultimate truth is ineffable tho. What is a tooth pick? Wood. What is wood? Cellulose fibers...ad infinitum. There is no final definition. And if there were,that term would be undefined.

If you are not going to get into a sematic debate then why throw down a gauntlet?
The whole point about most atheists I know is that they reject the whole idea of 'belief' and prefer to garner knowledge. The trick is not NOT believe at all. Once you accept belief into your mind, reason dies. Faith is the death of rationality, the death of inquiry.
So the reason I am an atheist is that I DO NOT BELIEVE in god. Saying I believe that god does not exist is stupid question begging nonsense. I simply does not make any sense at all.
You can be an atheist and agnostic at the same time, the latter being a subset of the former. I can't see why you have a problem with that unless you are buying into the pejorative connotations given by theists to the word atheism, which it need not have.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Like I said, it is much more rational and honest to use the common sense definitions.
Atheist= there is no God.
Theist= there is a God.
Agnostic= I don't know.

These are not common sense definitions. They are not definitions at all, not one is a definition makes grammatical sense.
A Theist is a person that believes in God (whatever god might mean).
An atheist is a person that does not believe in a god. That includes most agnostics including you.
An agnostic suggests that knowledge if god is not possible.

A tiny number of agnostics nonetheless believe in god. Which is not you, I take it?

[raw_thought]

At least we can agree on this. Whatever we choose to call ourselves the only logical answer is "I don't know".

Suffice it to say that the only rational answer to the question,"does God exist" is "I don't know."

Even theists must give this answer if they wish to appear rational.

Yes, of course. Why do you mention the obvious?

[raw_thought]

Like I said, it is much more rational and honest to use the common sense definitions.
Atheist= there is no God.
Theist= there is a God.
Agnostic= I don't know.

These are not common sense definitions. They are not definitions at all, not one is a definition makes grammatical sense.
A Theist is a person that believes in God (whatever god might mean).
An atheist is a person that does not believe in a god. That includes most agnostics including you.
An agnostic suggests that knowledge if god is not possible.

A tiny number of agnostics nonetheless believe in god. Which is not you, I take it?

A little anal arnt you. My meaning was clear.
But then you want to distract from your failure to grasp basic logic. If one says that an athiest does not believe that God is possible that means that he believes that God does not exist.
One can believe negative things. I believe that unicorns do not exist. In logic any proposition can be stated negatively. For example, " All Ravens are black" is logically equivalent to saying "There is no non-black thing that is a raven." See Hempel's raven paradox. It is very cool and related to what we are talking about.

[Obvious Leo]

Why do you mention the obvious?

It's a filthy habit I can't seem to shake off.